I figured it out!!

[Robert Buchanan]

In alt.support.girl-lovers Robert Buchanan

Why Frank McCoy and "Wonderer" get along so well...
Wonderer wants to get a 16 year old girl pregnant, and Franks
wants to BE a pregnant 16 year old...
That plus wonderers dementia and Franks total denial makes
them the perfect couple!
I doubt Franks wife would approve, but I'm sure she would
appreciate knowing everything in the long run...

Do you think she DOES know about his . . . uh . . .
proclivities?

If she does and hasn't urged him to get into counseling, she is
just as culpable IMO if he does something to harm a child.
However, I doubt she does - most pedos keep things like this
secret from the close people in their life. Even though they
"believe" (well, justify to themselves anyway) there's nothing
wrong with it.

But AFAWK, he's using his real name . . . why in the world
hasn't someone called her and TOLD her - maybe show her his posts
and his "creative writing?"
If that's not been tried, IMHO, we're every bit as culpable.
Because she possibly *could* force him into therapy . . . you
know, as in "You go or I leave you and take the kids" kind of
thing.
You better believe *I* would. IF I chose to stay at ALL.

If you're actually considering going RL on Mr. McCoy, I must advise
against that course of action. If he ever had any children,
they're almost surely grown by now. Frank never mentioned to me
that he had kids, which means that he hasn't any (which is
probable) or that he's had some and probably had his way with them
(which is speculative, of course).

I'm not sure what you mean by going "RL" on him . . . if you mean
pay him a visit, of course not. I have survival instinct and it
would not be in my best favor . . .

And (depending on the circumstances) it might qualify as criminal
harrassment.

If you mean alerting his wife and/or community - that's a
possibility, to be honest.

His wife is already aware of his inclinations and his fiction, and
what he does is none of his community's business, because he's not
actually hurting anyone. Trolling is one thing; RL harrassment is
another.

Why? Would you, in all honesty, be comfy with this man
living next door to you and having access (however limited) to
*your* kids???

Probably not. But we're not his neighbors, and I honestly believe
that McCoy poses no threat to anyone he knows in RL.

I'm not sure if I would face prosecution for that . . . he posts
in a public place and there is an assumed lack of privacy in doing
so. Also, bear in mind that many communities post pics of "johns"
visiting local prostitutes. They do that and AFAIK escape
prosecution.

That's a local matter, albeit one that I feel is a waste of public
resources.

Do you think that every time she comes home from the grocery
store she has to ask her daughter if "Daddy touched her
_there_?

If she does, she needs a good swift asskicking for putting her
daughter in harms way.

Well, there's a no-brainer - to people who aren't completely
fucked up - but I'll bet there's more sick bitches out there than
you think.
Karla Homolka helped her husband Paul Bernardo, kidnap, rape,
torture and murder 3 young girls - including her own sister!!! -
in Canada. Carol Bundy (no relation to Ted Bundy) also assisted
her husband in doing the same.
They're out there and fucktards like Frank can easily find them.

Frank has some truly sick fantasies, but I don't think he'd ever
act on them.

See, I disagree to an extent. He has fantasies, a God Complex (in
wanting to change the law and actively working toward that goal),
and I believe, a touch of psychopathy.

I don't think that McCoy is overtly psychotic, but I agree that his
incapability to believe (much less admit) that he's supporting
pedophilia while supporting it is a clear indication of that curious
lack of self- awareness that accompanies all psychotic pathologies. I
don't think he has a full-blown god complex, but I would agree that he
is incapable of admitting that he's wrong, at least on the topic of
so-called "inter- generational" sex.

That's mostly because nobody seems to follow what I mean (possibly my
own fault) well enough to give a valid or even reasoned response
showing I might be wrong. If people keep on misunderstanding my
position (sometimes it seems deliberately) then how can my position be
disproved?
I think *teenagers*, probably more-specifically young-adults
past-puberty, should be allowed to decide *who* they have sex with,
*when* they have sex, *whether* they have sex, and *if* they ever have
sex at all!
Other people, like you, keep *twisting* that into saying I want OLD
people to be able to FORCE YOUNG PEOPLE into having sex! I *don't!
In fact, if you examine *reality*, the chances of a teenager *wanting*
sex with an "old fart" is almost nonexistent! Not impossible, but
damned unlikely! The Straw-Man accusation that I want to "enable old
people to seduce young people" is a bunch of *horse crock*! Even the
possible case that *if* such laws were modified to *allow* kids to
decide who they want to have sex with, *might* allow *some* older
A. Irrelevant if it's the KIDS who pick THEM for sex.
B. Highly unlikely.
C. *COERCION* would STILL be illegal.
D. Missing the point.
E. Unproven that it's even likely.
However, the damage done *now* by such laws is *real*.
The *possible* damage done by some older "child molesting pervert" who
convinces a child to have sex with him/her, is pure speculation ...
that's really unlikely if the sex is truly *voluntary*. Something my
opponents dismiss out-of-hand as being impossible. They *neglect* to
consider that if it truly *is* impossible, then the damage will never
take place!
Why?
Because the premise is that the *teenager* decides. If the teenager
does *not* decide (as in the premise above) then it's still illegal!
In fact, it's RAPE.
Reducing the argument to the absurd.
The reason most people don't buy that, is because they still buy into
the bullshit idea that a child having sex with an adult, is
by-definition being hurt ... whether the child thinks so or not,
whether the child grows up and thinks so or not, whether the child
dies as an aging grandparent at the age of 105, and STILL thinks so,
matters not to the people saying, "She was hurt, no matter what she
thinks."
And THAT attitude is the whole problem!
The attitude that a person is always hurt by a specific activity, no
matter what that person thinks, then or ever. Child or adult, the
premise is STILL wrong!
Oh, NOT because people *can't* be hurt without their knowing it. They
can. But from the protective attitude of: "WE know what's best for
you, so shut the fuck up!"
The moment the *government* tells me it knows what's best for me (like
in this case) I immediately wonder who has an axe to grind at my
expense. Usually, it's more than one person; and they don't have *my*
well being at heart at all.
As in this case.
So: Feel free to refute the argument ... If you can.
*I* listen, even if damned few of you do.

All that = if the opportunity
presents itself, no fear of getting caught, and perhaps a tiff with
the wifey, something COULD happen. IF something did and I stood by
and did nothing to prevent that, I would be just as liable morally
as he.

I don't agree. You aren't responsible for his actions; he is.

All it takes is the alignment of variables. Trigger (tiff),
opportunity, possibility of escape, and desire = trouble for an
undeserving, innocent child.

I personally don't believe that McCoy is aggressive enough to actually
act on his desires. I could be wrong.

What desires?
My desires to change wrong-headed laws?
You bet!
Desires to have sex?
Again, you bet. I love my wife; and sex with her is wonderful!
Desires to fight bigotry?
Damned tootin!
Desires to have sex with anybody other than my wife?
Better watch your accusations.
That's not only completely *wrong*, it's slander.
Ask anybody who knows me about my attitude towards my wife.
Hell, ask my wife.
I like to *look* at sexy young women.
Have sex with them?
What? And give up a chance with my wife?
(I would; because I'd insist on her knowing first ... and she wouldn't
likely let me in bed afterwards for months at the least.)
You know *nothing* about me ... quite obviously.
You *might*, if you actually *read* my stories; but I'm not really
asking that. But they *do* give away a lot of my real attitude about
sex and who with I'd want sex ... Only not what people just skimming
the material might think at first glance. *VERY* different, in fact.
My *fantasies* they document quite accurately.
But then, unlike many people, I differentiate between fantasy and
reality. What makes a wonderful fantasy would often make a truly
horrid reality.
Like a guy reading a book about a hero fighting goblins and orcs in
some far off imaginary country, he might wish the *story* could be
true; as some wonderful people live in the story. However wanting to
*live* in such a story would likely be short, miserable, and leading
to a horrible death. Liking a particular fantasy is NOT necessarily
wishing it could come true for YOU, or any indication that you WANT to
make it true.
Geesh.
Go read a murder-mystery or two.
Or Stephen King.

Also, as I have mentioned previously, fantasies often lead to the
act itself - fantasies stop short, they cease to fulfill. There
needs to be an escalation - and after a time, the only logical
escalation is the act itself.

Not for everyone. Not everyone with pedophile or ephebophile
tendencies makes that (suprisingly wide) leap towards being an actual
sex offender. A sixtysomething man who posts to USENET on a daily
basis doesn't seem to me like the type to go out and molest and/or
engage in sex with minors. Again, I could be wrong.

Wouldn't do it even if the teenagers came climbing in my lap begging
for sex. Though, I *might* suggest they go off somewhere private and
keep it to themselves, so I wouldn't feel obligated to report their
activities.
OK. I'll admit it: I *would* be tempted to watch.
Wouldn't though. Got more sense.

A point that I want to clarify, Frank: I never stated or even suggested
that you want to force anybody to have sex with anyone in any
circumstances. I don't believe you do, and you're not telling the truth
when you type that I've so much as hinted otherwise.

Thanks for campaigning!

[Frank McCoy]

In alt.fan.frank.mccoy Robert Buchanan

Post by Robert Buchanan

In alt.support.girl-lovers Robert Buchanan

Why Frank McCoy and "Wonderer" get along so well...
Wonderer wants to get a 16 year old girl pregnant, and Franks
wants to BE a pregnant 16 year old...
That plus wonderers dementia and Franks total denial makes
them the perfect couple!
I doubt Franks wife would approve, but I'm sure she would
appreciate knowing everything in the long run...

Do you think she DOES know about his . . . uh . . .
proclivities?

If she does and hasn't urged him to get into counseling, she is
just as culpable IMO if he does something to harm a child.
However, I doubt she does - most pedos keep things like this
secret from the close people in their life. Even though they
"believe" (well, justify to themselves anyway) there's nothing
wrong with it.

But AFAWK, he's using his real name . . . why in the world
hasn't someone called her and TOLD her - maybe show her his posts
and his "creative writing?"
If that's not been tried, IMHO, we're every bit as culpable.
Because she possibly *could* force him into therapy . . . you
know, as in "You go or I leave you and take the kids" kind of
thing.
You better believe *I* would. IF I chose to stay at ALL.

If you're actually considering going RL on Mr. McCoy, I must advise
against that course of action. If he ever had any children,
they're almost surely grown by now. Frank never mentioned to me
that he had kids, which means that he hasn't any (which is
probable) or that he's had some and probably had his way with them
(which is speculative, of course).

I'm not sure what you mean by going "RL" on him . . . if you mean
pay him a visit, of course not. I have survival instinct and it
would not be in my best favor . . .

And (depending on the circumstances) it might qualify as criminal
harrassment.

If you mean alerting his wife and/or community - that's a
possibility, to be honest.

His wife is already aware of his inclinations and his fiction, and
what he does is none of his community's business, because he's not
actually hurting anyone. Trolling is one thing; RL harrassment is
another.

Why? Would you, in all honesty, be comfy with this man
living next door to you and having access (however limited) to
*your* kids???

Probably not. But we're not his neighbors, and I honestly believe
that McCoy poses no threat to anyone he knows in RL.

I'm not sure if I would face prosecution for that . . . he posts
in a public place and there is an assumed lack of privacy in doing
so. Also, bear in mind that many communities post pics of "johns"
visiting local prostitutes. They do that and AFAIK escape
prosecution.

That's a local matter, albeit one that I feel is a waste of public
resources.

Do you think that every time she comes home from the grocery
store she has to ask her daughter if "Daddy touched her
_there_?

If she does, she needs a good swift asskicking for putting her
daughter in harms way.

Well, there's a no-brainer - to people who aren't completely
fucked up - but I'll bet there's more sick bitches out there than
you think.
Karla Homolka helped her husband Paul Bernardo, kidnap, rape,
torture and murder 3 young girls - including her own sister!!! -
in Canada. Carol Bundy (no relation to Ted Bundy) also assisted
her husband in doing the same.
They're out there and fucktards like Frank can easily find them.

Frank has some truly sick fantasies, but I don't think he'd ever
act on them.

See, I disagree to an extent. He has fantasies, a God Complex (in
wanting to change the law and actively working toward that goal),
and I believe, a touch of psychopathy.

I don't think that McCoy is overtly psychotic, but I agree that his
incapability to believe (much less admit) that he's supporting
pedophilia while supporting it is a clear indication of that curious
lack of self- awareness that accompanies all psychotic pathologies. I
don't think he has a full-blown god complex, but I would agree that he
is incapable of admitting that he's wrong, at least on the topic of
so-called "inter- generational" sex.

That's mostly because nobody seems to follow what I mean (possibly my
own fault) well enough to give a valid or even reasoned response
showing I might be wrong. If people keep on misunderstanding my
position (sometimes it seems deliberately) then how can my position be
disproved?
I think *teenagers*, probably more-specifically young-adults
past-puberty, should be allowed to decide *who* they have sex with,
*when* they have sex, *whether* they have sex, and *if* they ever have
sex at all!
Other people, like you, keep *twisting* that into saying I want OLD
people to be able to FORCE YOUNG PEOPLE into having sex! I *don't!
In fact, if you examine *reality*, the chances of a teenager *wanting*
sex with an "old fart" is almost nonexistent! Not impossible, but
damned unlikely! The Straw-Man accusation that I want to "enable old
people to seduce young people" is a bunch of *horse crock*! Even the
possible case that *if* such laws were modified to *allow* kids to
decide who they want to have sex with, *might* allow *some* older
A. Irrelevant if it's the KIDS who pick THEM for sex.
B. Highly unlikely.
C. *COERCION* would STILL be illegal.
D. Missing the point.
E. Unproven that it's even likely.
However, the damage done *now* by such laws is *real*.
The *possible* damage done by some older "child molesting pervert" who
convinces a child to have sex with him/her, is pure speculation ...
that's really unlikely if the sex is truly *voluntary*. Something my
opponents dismiss out-of-hand as being impossible. They *neglect* to
consider that if it truly *is* impossible, then the damage will never
take place!
Why?
Because the premise is that the *teenager* decides. If the teenager
does *not* decide (as in the premise above) then it's still illegal!
In fact, it's RAPE.
Reducing the argument to the absurd.
The reason most people don't buy that, is because they still buy into
the bullshit idea that a child having sex with an adult, is
by-definition being hurt ... whether the child thinks so or not,
whether the child grows up and thinks so or not, whether the child
dies as an aging grandparent at the age of 105, and STILL thinks so,
matters not to the people saying, "She was hurt, no matter what she
thinks."
And THAT attitude is the whole problem!
The attitude that a person is always hurt by a specific activity, no
matter what that person thinks, then or ever. Child or adult, the
premise is STILL wrong!
Oh, NOT because people *can't* be hurt without their knowing it. They
can. But from the protective attitude of: "WE know what's best for
you, so shut the fuck up!"
The moment the *government* tells me it knows what's best for me (like
in this case) I immediately wonder who has an axe to grind at my
expense. Usually, it's more than one person; and they don't have *my*
well being at heart at all.
As in this case.
So: Feel free to refute the argument ... If you can.
*I* listen, even if damned few of you do.

All that = if the opportunity
presents itself, no fear of getting caught, and perhaps a tiff with
the wifey, something COULD happen. IF something did and I stood by
and did nothing to prevent that, I would be just as liable morally
as he.

I don't agree. You aren't responsible for his actions; he is.

All it takes is the alignment of variables. Trigger (tiff),
opportunity, possibility of escape, and desire = trouble for an
undeserving, innocent child.

I personally don't believe that McCoy is aggressive enough to actually
act on his desires. I could be wrong.

What desires?
My desires to change wrong-headed laws?
You bet!
Desires to have sex?
Again, you bet. I love my wife; and sex with her is wonderful!
Desires to fight bigotry?
Damned tootin!
Desires to have sex with anybody other than my wife?
Better watch your accusations.
That's not only completely *wrong*, it's slander.
Ask anybody who knows me about my attitude towards my wife.
Hell, ask my wife.
I like to *look* at sexy young women.
Have sex with them?
What? And give up a chance with my wife?
(I would; because I'd insist on her knowing first ... and she wouldn't
likely let me in bed afterwards for months at the least.)
You know *nothing* about me ... quite obviously.
You *might*, if you actually *read* my stories; but I'm not really
asking that. But they *do* give away a lot of my real attitude about
sex and who with I'd want sex ... Only not what people just skimming
the material might think at first glance. *VERY* different, in fact.
My *fantasies* they document quite accurately.
But then, unlike many people, I differentiate between fantasy and
reality. What makes a wonderful fantasy would often make a truly
horrid reality.
Like a guy reading a book about a hero fighting goblins and orcs in
some far off imaginary country, he might wish the *story* could be
true; as some wonderful people live in the story. However wanting to
*live* in such a story would likely be short, miserable, and leading
to a horrible death. Liking a particular fantasy is NOT necessarily
wishing it could come true for YOU, or any indication that you WANT to
make it true.
Geesh.
Go read a murder-mystery or two.
Or Stephen King.

Also, as I have mentioned previously, fantasies often lead to the
act itself - fantasies stop short, they cease to fulfill. There
needs to be an escalation - and after a time, the only logical
escalation is the act itself.

Not for everyone. Not everyone with pedophile or ephebophile
tendencies makes that (suprisingly wide) leap towards being an actual
sex offender. A sixtysomething man who posts to USENET on a daily
basis doesn't seem to me like the type to go out and molest and/or
engage in sex with minors. Again, I could be wrong.

Wouldn't do it even if the teenagers came climbing in my lap begging
for sex. Though, I *might* suggest they go off somewhere private and
keep it to themselves, so I wouldn't feel obligated to report their
activities.
OK. I'll admit it: I *would* be tempted to watch.
Wouldn't though. Got more sense.

A point that I want to clarify, Frank: I never stated or even suggested
that you want to force anybody to have sex with anyone in any
circumstances. I don't believe you do, and you're not telling the truth
when you type that I've so much as hinted otherwise.

Generic "you" above.
Taking in not only the person I'm talking to in the immediate response;
but all opposing my views in the entire thread.

Sorry if you thought I was attacking "you" in particular.
I do lose track of which person aimed what insult at me.
So, if you (personally) see me saying, "You believe XXX about me," then
the "You" is intended to be, "Most of those who disagree with me about
YYY subject in this thread."
It's a case of:
"If the shoe fits, wear it. If not, then please ignore."

Yeah, I know: I shouldn't be so lazy; and I *should* go back and
determine exactly which person in a thread said what.

Only then I wouldn't have even 1/4 enough time to answer all the posts
aimed at me, and some preverts (si) would ass-u-me that I didn't *have*
an answer; and so they "won" the argument. ;-{

Post by Robert Buchanan
Thanks for campaigning!

Well ... It's beginning to FEEL like a campaign.
Sorry if you feel caught in the middle of a bunch of television
commercials during election season.

[Robert Buchanan]

Post by Frank McCoy
In alt.fan.frank.mccoy Robert Buchanan

Post by Robert Buchanan

In alt.support.girl-lovers Robert Buchanan

Why Frank McCoy and "Wonderer" get along so well...
Wonderer wants to get a 16 year old girl pregnant, and Franks
wants to BE a pregnant 16 year old...
That plus wonderers dementia and Franks total denial makes
them the perfect couple!
I doubt Franks wife would approve, but I'm sure she would
appreciate knowing everything in the long run...

Do you think she DOES know about his . . . uh . . .
proclivities?

If she does and hasn't urged him to get into counseling, she is
just as culpable IMO if he does something to harm a child.
However, I doubt she does - most pedos keep things like this
secret from the close people in their life. Even though they
"believe" (well, justify to themselves anyway) there's nothing
wrong with it.

But AFAWK, he's using his real name . . . why in the world
hasn't someone called her and TOLD her - maybe show her his posts
and his "creative writing?"
If that's not been tried, IMHO, we're every bit as culpable.
Because she possibly *could* force him into therapy . . . you
know, as in "You go or I leave you and take the kids" kind of
thing.
You better believe *I* would. IF I chose to stay at ALL.

If you're actually considering going RL on Mr. McCoy, I must advise
against that course of action. If he ever had any children,
they're almost surely grown by now. Frank never mentioned to me
that he had kids, which means that he hasn't any (which is
probable) or that he's had some and probably had his way with them
(which is speculative, of course).

I'm not sure what you mean by going "RL" on him . . . if you mean
pay him a visit, of course not. I have survival instinct and it
would not be in my best favor . . .

And (depending on the circumstances) it might qualify as criminal
harrassment.

If you mean alerting his wife and/or community - that's a
possibility, to be honest.

His wife is already aware of his inclinations and his fiction, and
what he does is none of his community's business, because he's not
actually hurting anyone. Trolling is one thing; RL harrassment is
another.

Why? Would you, in all honesty, be comfy with this man
living next door to you and having access (however limited) to
*your* kids???

Probably not. But we're not his neighbors, and I honestly believe
that McCoy poses no threat to anyone he knows in RL.

I'm not sure if I would face prosecution for that . . . he posts
in a public place and there is an assumed lack of privacy in doing
so. Also, bear in mind that many communities post pics of "johns"
visiting local prostitutes. They do that and AFAIK escape
prosecution.

That's a local matter, albeit one that I feel is a waste of public
resources.

Do you think that every time she comes home from the grocery
store she has to ask her daughter if "Daddy touched her
_there_?

If she does, she needs a good swift asskicking for putting her
daughter in harms way.

Well, there's a no-brainer - to people who aren't completely
fucked up - but I'll bet there's more sick bitches out there than
you think.
Karla Homolka helped her husband Paul Bernardo, kidnap, rape,
torture and murder 3 young girls - including her own sister!!! -
in Canada. Carol Bundy (no relation to Ted Bundy) also assisted
her husband in doing the same.
They're out there and fucktards like Frank can easily find them.

Frank has some truly sick fantasies, but I don't think he'd ever
act on them.

See, I disagree to an extent. He has fantasies, a God Complex (in
wanting to change the law and actively working toward that goal),
and I believe, a touch of psychopathy.

I don't think that McCoy is overtly psychotic, but I agree that his
incapability to believe (much less admit) that he's supporting
pedophilia while supporting it is a clear indication of that curious
lack of self- awareness that accompanies all psychotic pathologies. I
don't think he has a full-blown god complex, but I would agree that he
is incapable of admitting that he's wrong, at least on the topic of
so-called "inter- generational" sex.

That's mostly because nobody seems to follow what I mean (possibly my
own fault) well enough to give a valid or even reasoned response
showing I might be wrong. If people keep on misunderstanding my
position (sometimes it seems deliberately) then how can my position be
disproved?
I think *teenagers*, probably more-specifically young-adults
past-puberty, should be allowed to decide *who* they have sex with,
*when* they have sex, *whether* they have sex, and *if* they ever have
sex at all!
Other people, like you, keep *twisting* that into saying I want OLD
people to be able to FORCE YOUNG PEOPLE into having sex! I *don't!
In fact, if you examine *reality*, the chances of a teenager *wanting*
sex with an "old fart" is almost nonexistent! Not impossible, but
damned unlikely! The Straw-Man accusation that I want to "enable old
people to seduce young people" is a bunch of *horse crock*! Even the
possible case that *if* such laws were modified to *allow* kids to
decide who they want to have sex with, *might* allow *some* older
A. Irrelevant if it's the KIDS who pick THEM for sex.
B. Highly unlikely.
C. *COERCION* would STILL be illegal.
D. Missing the point.
E. Unproven that it's even likely.
However, the damage done *now* by such laws is *real*.
The *possible* damage done by some older "child molesting pervert" who
convinces a child to have sex with him/her, is pure speculation ...
that's really unlikely if the sex is truly *voluntary*. Something my
opponents dismiss out-of-hand as being impossible. They *neglect* to
consider that if it truly *is* impossible, then the damage will never
take place!
Why?
Because the premise is that the *teenager* decides. If the teenager
does *not* decide (as in the premise above) then it's still illegal!
In fact, it's RAPE.
Reducing the argument to the absurd.
The reason most people don't buy that, is because they still buy into
the bullshit idea that a child having sex with an adult, is
by-definition being hurt ... whether the child thinks so or not,
whether the child grows up and thinks so or not, whether the child
dies as an aging grandparent at the age of 105, and STILL thinks so,
matters not to the people saying, "She was hurt, no matter what she
thinks."
And THAT attitude is the whole problem!
The attitude that a person is always hurt by a specific activity, no
matter what that person thinks, then or ever. Child or adult, the
premise is STILL wrong!
Oh, NOT because people *can't* be hurt without their knowing it. They
can. But from the protective attitude of: "WE know what's best for
you, so shut the fuck up!"
The moment the *government* tells me it knows what's best for me (like
in this case) I immediately wonder who has an axe to grind at my
expense. Usually, it's more than one person; and they don't have *my*
well being at heart at all.
As in this case.
So: Feel free to refute the argument ... If you can.
*I* listen, even if damned few of you do.

All that = if the opportunity
presents itself, no fear of getting caught, and perhaps a tiff with
the wifey, something COULD happen. IF something did and I stood by
and did nothing to prevent that, I would be just as liable morally
as he.

I don't agree. You aren't responsible for his actions; he is.

All it takes is the alignment of variables. Trigger (tiff),
opportunity, possibility of escape, and desire = trouble for an
undeserving, innocent child.

I personally don't believe that McCoy is aggressive enough to actually
act on his desires. I could be wrong.

What desires?
My desires to change wrong-headed laws?
You bet!
Desires to have sex?
Again, you bet. I love my wife; and sex with her is wonderful!
Desires to fight bigotry?
Damned tootin!
Desires to have sex with anybody other than my wife?
Better watch your accusations.
That's not only completely *wrong*, it's slander.
Ask anybody who knows me about my attitude towards my wife.
Hell, ask my wife.
I like to *look* at sexy young women.
Have sex with them?
What? And give up a chance with my wife?
(I would; because I'd insist on her knowing first ... and she wouldn't
likely let me in bed afterwards for months at the least.)
You know *nothing* about me ... quite obviously.
You *might*, if you actually *read* my stories; but I'm not really
asking that. But they *do* give away a lot of my real attitude about
sex and who with I'd want sex ... Only not what people just skimming
the material might think at first glance. *VERY* different, in fact.
My *fantasies* they document quite accurately.
But then, unlike many people, I differentiate between fantasy and
reality. What makes a wonderful fantasy would often make a truly
horrid reality.
Like a guy reading a book about a hero fighting goblins and orcs in
some far off imaginary country, he might wish the *story* could be
true; as some wonderful people live in the story. However wanting to
*live* in such a story would likely be short, miserable, and leading
to a horrible death. Liking a particular fantasy is NOT necessarily
wishing it could come true for YOU, or any indication that you WANT to
make it true.
Geesh.
Go read a murder-mystery or two.
Or Stephen King.

Also, as I have mentioned previously, fantasies often lead to the
act itself - fantasies stop short, they cease to fulfill. There
needs to be an escalation - and after a time, the only logical
escalation is the act itself.

Not for everyone. Not everyone with pedophile or ephebophile
tendencies makes that (suprisingly wide) leap towards being an actual
sex offender. A sixtysomething man who posts to USENET on a daily
basis doesn't seem to me like the type to go out and molest and/or
engage in sex with minors. Again, I could be wrong.

Wouldn't do it even if the teenagers came climbing in my lap begging
for sex. Though, I *might* suggest they go off somewhere private and
keep it to themselves, so I wouldn't feel obligated to report their
activities.
OK. I'll admit it: I *would* be tempted to watch.
Wouldn't though. Got more sense.

A point that I want to clarify, Frank: I never stated or even suggested
that you want to force anybody to have sex with anyone in any
circumstances. I don't believe you do, and you're not telling the truth
when you type that I've so much as hinted otherwise.

Generic "you" above.

I don't give a shit; when you respond to my post, I make the logical
assumption that you're responding to me.

Post by Frank McCoy
Taking in not only the person I'm talking to in the immediate response;
but all opposing my views in the entire thread.

I don't type for everyone, as their views don't necessarily mirror mine.
For example, it's obvious that Max Grrl and I have notably different views
regarding you. And I resent the implication that I've ever posted anything
even remotely similar to actual slander.

Post by Frank McCoy
Sorry if you thought I was attacking "you" in particular.
I do lose track of which person aimed what insult at me.
So, if you (personally) see me saying, "You believe XXX about me," then
the "You" is intended to be, "Most of those who disagree with me about
YYY subject in this thread."
"If the shoe fits, wear it. If not, then please ignore."
Yeah, I know: I shouldn't be so lazy; and I *should* go back and
determine exactly which person in a thread said what.
Only then I wouldn't have even 1/4 enough time to answer all the posts
aimed at me, and some preverts (si) would ass-u-me that I didn't *have*
an answer; and so they "won" the argument. ;-{

Post by Robert Buchanan
Thanks for campaigning!

Well ... It's beginning to FEEL like a campaign.
Sorry if you feel caught in the middle of a bunch of television
commercials during election season.

Are you kidding? I'm the manager of this campaign, and you're a winner if
I ever saw one!

[bob&carole]

Post by Frank McCoy
In alt.fan.frank.mccoy Robert Buchanan

Post by Robert Buchanan

In alt.support.girl-lovers Robert Buchanan

Why Frank McCoy and "Wonderer" get along so well...
Wonderer wants to get a 16 year old girl pregnant, and Franks
wants to BE a pregnant 16 year old...
That plus wonderers dementia and Franks total denial makes
them the perfect couple!
I doubt Franks wife would approve, but I'm sure she would
appreciate knowing everything in the long run...

Do you think she DOES know about his . . . uh . . .
proclivities?

If she does and hasn't urged him to get into counseling, she is
just as culpable IMO if he does something to harm a child.
However, I doubt she does - most pedos keep things like this
secret from the close people in their life. Even though they
"believe" (well, justify to themselves anyway) there's nothing
wrong with it.

But AFAWK, he's using his real name . . . why in the world
hasn't someone called her and TOLD her - maybe show her his posts
and his "creative writing?"
If that's not been tried, IMHO, we're every bit as culpable.
Because she possibly *could* force him into therapy . . . you
know, as in "You go or I leave you and take the kids" kind of
thing.
You better believe *I* would. IF I chose to stay at ALL.

If you're actually considering going RL on Mr. McCoy, I must advise
against that course of action. If he ever had any children,
they're almost surely grown by now. Frank never mentioned to me
that he had kids, which means that he hasn't any (which is
probable) or that he's had some and probably had his way with them
(which is speculative, of course).

I'm not sure what you mean by going "RL" on him . . . if you mean
pay him a visit, of course not. I have survival instinct and it
would not be in my best favor . . .

And (depending on the circumstances) it might qualify as criminal
harrassment.

If you mean alerting his wife and/or community - that's a
possibility, to be honest.

His wife is already aware of his inclinations and his fiction, and
what he does is none of his community's business, because he's not
actually hurting anyone. Trolling is one thing; RL harrassment is
another.

Why? Would you, in all honesty, be comfy with this man
living next door to you and having access (however limited) to
*your* kids???

Probably not. But we're not his neighbors, and I honestly believe
that McCoy poses no threat to anyone he knows in RL.

I'm not sure if I would face prosecution for that . . . he posts
in a public place and there is an assumed lack of privacy in doing
so. Also, bear in mind that many communities post pics of "johns"
visiting local prostitutes. They do that and AFAIK escape
prosecution.

That's a local matter, albeit one that I feel is a waste of public
resources.

Do you think that every time she comes home from the grocery
store she has to ask her daughter if "Daddy touched her
_there_?

If she does, she needs a good swift asskicking for putting her
daughter in harms way.

Well, there's a no-brainer - to people who aren't completely
fucked up - but I'll bet there's more sick bitches out there than
you think.
Karla Homolka helped her husband Paul Bernardo, kidnap, rape,
torture and murder 3 young girls - including her own sister!!! -
in Canada. Carol Bundy (no relation to Ted Bundy) also assisted
her husband in doing the same.
They're out there and fucktards like Frank can easily find them.

Frank has some truly sick fantasies, but I don't think he'd ever
act on them.

See, I disagree to an extent. He has fantasies, a God Complex (in
wanting to change the law and actively working toward that goal),
and I believe, a touch of psychopathy.

I don't think that McCoy is overtly psychotic, but I agree that his
incapability to believe (much less admit) that he's supporting
pedophilia while supporting it is a clear indication of that curious
lack of self- awareness that accompanies all psychotic pathologies. I
don't think he has a full-blown god complex, but I would agree that he
is incapable of admitting that he's wrong, at least on the topic of
so-called "inter- generational" sex.

That's mostly because nobody seems to follow what I mean (possibly my
own fault) well enough to give a valid or even reasoned response
showing I might be wrong. If people keep on misunderstanding my
position (sometimes it seems deliberately) then how can my position be
disproved?
I think *teenagers*, probably more-specifically young-adults
past-puberty, should be allowed to decide *who* they have sex with,
*when* they have sex, *whether* they have sex, and *if* they ever have
sex at all!
Other people, like you, keep *twisting* that into saying I want OLD
people to be able to FORCE YOUNG PEOPLE into having sex! I *don't!
In fact, if you examine *reality*, the chances of a teenager *wanting*
sex with an "old fart" is almost nonexistent! Not impossible, but
damned unlikely! The Straw-Man accusation that I want to "enable old
people to seduce young people" is a bunch of *horse crock*! Even the
possible case that *if* such laws were modified to *allow* kids to
decide who they want to have sex with, *might* allow *some* older
A. Irrelevant if it's the KIDS who pick THEM for sex.
B. Highly unlikely.
C. *COERCION* would STILL be illegal.
D. Missing the point.
E. Unproven that it's even likely.
However, the damage done *now* by such laws is *real*.
The *possible* damage done by some older "child molesting pervert" who
convinces a child to have sex with him/her, is pure speculation ...
that's really unlikely if the sex is truly *voluntary*. Something my
opponents dismiss out-of-hand as being impossible. They *neglect* to
consider that if it truly *is* impossible, then the damage will never
take place!
Why?
Because the premise is that the *teenager* decides. If the teenager
does *not* decide (as in the premise above) then it's still illegal!
In fact, it's RAPE.
Reducing the argument to the absurd.
The reason most people don't buy that, is because they still buy into
the bullshit idea that a child having sex with an adult, is
by-definition being hurt ... whether the child thinks so or not,
whether the child grows up and thinks so or not, whether the child
dies as an aging grandparent at the age of 105, and STILL thinks so,
matters not to the people saying, "She was hurt, no matter what she
thinks."
And THAT attitude is the whole problem!
The attitude that a person is always hurt by a specific activity, no
matter what that person thinks, then or ever. Child or adult, the
premise is STILL wrong!
Oh, NOT because people *can't* be hurt without their knowing it. They
can. But from the protective attitude of: "WE know what's best for
you, so shut the fuck up!"
The moment the *government* tells me it knows what's best for me (like
in this case) I immediately wonder who has an axe to grind at my
expense. Usually, it's more than one person; and they don't have *my*
well being at heart at all.
As in this case.
So: Feel free to refute the argument ... If you can.
*I* listen, even if damned few of you do.

All that = if the opportunity
presents itself, no fear of getting caught, and perhaps a tiff with
the wifey, something COULD happen. IF something did and I stood by
and did nothing to prevent that, I would be just as liable morally
as he.

I don't agree. You aren't responsible for his actions; he is.

All it takes is the alignment of variables. Trigger (tiff),
opportunity, possibility of escape, and desire = trouble for an
undeserving, innocent child.

I personally don't believe that McCoy is aggressive enough to actually
act on his desires. I could be wrong.

What desires?
My desires to change wrong-headed laws?
You bet!

And the pedophile thinks it can change the laws to allow it to molest
young girls.

Post by Frank McCoy

Post by Robert Buchanan

Desires to have sex?
Again, you bet. I love my wife; and sex with her is wonderful!

We can olny wonder if your wife knows about your dark side, pedo frank.

Post by Frank McCoy

Post by Robert Buchanan

Desires to fight bigotry?
Damned tootin!
Desires to have sex with anybody other than my wife?
Better watch your accusations.

You will do nothing, pedo frank.......

Post by Frank McCoy

Post by Robert Buchanan

That's not only completely *wrong*, it's slander.
Ask anybody who knows me about my attitude towards my wife.
Hell, ask my wife.
I like to *look* at sexy young women.
Have sex with them?
What? And give up a chance with my wife?
(I would; because I'd insist on her knowing first ... and she wouldn't
likely let me in bed afterwards for months at the least.)
You know *nothing* about me ... quite obviously.
You *might*, if you actually *read* my stories; but I'm not really
asking that. But they *do* give away a lot of my real attitude about
sex and who with I'd want sex ... Only not what people just skimming
the material might think at first glance. *VERY* different, in fact.
My *fantasies* they document quite accurately.

We're well aware that you are a sick mother fucker, pedo frank

Post by Frank McCoy

Post by Robert Buchanan

But then, unlike many people, I differentiate between fantasy and
reality. What makes a wonderful fantasy would often make a truly
horrid reality.
Like a guy reading a book about a hero fighting goblins and orcs in
some far off imaginary country, he might wish the *story* could be
true; as some wonderful people live in the story. However wanting to
*live* in such a story would likely be short, miserable, and leading
to a horrible death. Liking a particular fantasy is NOT necessarily
wishing it could come true for YOU, or any indication that you WANT to
make it true.
Geesh.
Go read a murder-mystery or two.
Or Stephen King.

Also, as I have mentioned previously, fantasies often lead to the
act itself - fantasies stop short, they cease to fulfill. There
needs to be an escalation - and after a time, the only logical
escalation is the act itself.

Not for everyone. Not everyone with pedophile or ephebophile
tendencies makes that (suprisingly wide) leap towards being an actual
sex offender. A sixtysomething man who posts to USENET on a daily
basis doesn't seem to me like the type to go out and molest and/or
engage in sex with minors. Again, I could be wrong.

Wouldn't do it even if the teenagers came climbing in my lap begging
for sex. Though, I *might* suggest they go off somewhere private and
keep it to themselves, so I wouldn't feel obligated to report their
activities.
OK. I'll admit it: I *would* be tempted to watch.
Wouldn't though. Got more sense.

A point that I want to clarify, Frank: I never stated or even suggested
that you want to force anybody to have sex with anyone in any
circumstances. I don't believe you do, and you're not telling the truth
when you type that I've so much as hinted otherwise.

Generic "you" above.
Taking in not only the person I'm talking to in the immediate response;
but all opposing my views in the entire thread.
Sorry if you thought I was attacking "you" in particular.
I do lose track of which person aimed what insult at me.
So, if you (personally) see me saying, "You believe XXX about me," then
the "You" is intended to be, "Most of those who disagree with me about
YYY subject in this thread."
"If the shoe fits, wear it. If not, then please ignore."
Yeah, I know: I shouldn't be so lazy; and I *should* go back and
determine exactly which person in a thread said what.
Only then I wouldn't have even 1/4 enough time to answer all the posts
aimed at me, and some preverts (si) would ass-u-me that I didn't *have*
an answer; and so they "won" the argument. ;-{

Post by Robert Buchanan
Thanks for campaigning!

Well ... It's beginning to FEEL like a campaign.
Sorry if you feel caught in the middle of a bunch of television
commercials during election season.
--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

[Max Grrl]

Post by bob&carole

Post by Frank McCoy
In alt.fan.frank.mccoy Robert Buchanan

Post by Robert Buchanan

In alt.support.girl-lovers Robert Buchanan

Why Frank McCoy and "Wonderer" get along so well...
Wonderer wants to get a 16 year old girl pregnant, and Franks
wants to BE a pregnant 16 year old...
That plus wonderers dementia and Franks total denial makes
them the perfect couple!
I doubt Franks wife would approve, but I'm sure she would
appreciate knowing everything in the long run...

Do you think she DOES know about his . . . uh . . .
proclivities?

If she does and hasn't urged him to get into counseling, she is
just as culpable IMO if he does something to harm a child.
However, I doubt she does - most pedos keep things like this
secret from the close people in their life. Even though they
"believe" (well, justify to themselves anyway) there's nothing
wrong with it.

But AFAWK, he's using his real name . . . why in the world
hasn't someone called her and TOLD her - maybe show her his posts
and his "creative writing?"
If that's not been tried, IMHO, we're every bit as culpable.
Because she possibly *could* force him into therapy . . . you
know, as in "You go or I leave you and take the kids" kind of
thing.
You better believe *I* would. IF I chose to stay at ALL.

If you're actually considering going RL on Mr. McCoy, I must advise
against that course of action. If he ever had any children,
they're almost surely grown by now. Frank never mentioned to me
that he had kids, which means that he hasn't any (which is
probable) or that he's had some and probably had his way with them
(which is speculative, of course).

I'm not sure what you mean by going "RL" on him . . . if you mean
pay him a visit, of course not. I have survival instinct and it
would not be in my best favor . . .

And (depending on the circumstances) it might qualify as criminal
harrassment.

If you mean alerting his wife and/or community - that's a
possibility, to be honest.

His wife is already aware of his inclinations and his fiction, and
what he does is none of his community's business, because he's not
actually hurting anyone. Trolling is one thing; RL harrassment is
another.

Why? Would you, in all honesty, be comfy with this man
living next door to you and having access (however limited) to
*your* kids???

Probably not. But we're not his neighbors, and I honestly believe
that McCoy poses no threat to anyone he knows in RL.

I'm not sure if I would face prosecution for that . . . he posts
in a public place and there is an assumed lack of privacy in doing
so. Also, bear in mind that many communities post pics of "johns"
visiting local prostitutes. They do that and AFAIK escape
prosecution.

That's a local matter, albeit one that I feel is a waste of public
resources.

Do you think that every time she comes home from the grocery
store she has to ask her daughter if "Daddy touched her
_there_?

If she does, she needs a good swift asskicking for putting her
daughter in harms way.

Well, there's a no-brainer - to people who aren't completely
fucked up - but I'll bet there's more sick bitches out there than
you think.
Karla Homolka helped her husband Paul Bernardo, kidnap, rape,
torture and murder 3 young girls - including her own sister!!! -
in Canada. Carol Bundy (no relation to Ted Bundy) also assisted
her husband in doing the same.
They're out there and fucktards like Frank can easily find them.

Frank has some truly sick fantasies, but I don't think he'd ever
act on them.

See, I disagree to an extent. He has fantasies, a God Complex (in
wanting to change the law and actively working toward that goal),
and I believe, a touch of psychopathy.

I don't think that McCoy is overtly psychotic, but I agree that his
incapability to believe (much less admit) that he's supporting
pedophilia while supporting it is a clear indication of that curious
lack of self- awareness that accompanies all psychotic pathologies. I
don't think he has a full-blown god complex, but I would agree that he
is incapable of admitting that he's wrong, at least on the topic of
so-called "inter- generational" sex.

That's mostly because nobody seems to follow what I mean (possibly my
own fault) well enough to give a valid or even reasoned response
showing I might be wrong. If people keep on misunderstanding my
position (sometimes it seems deliberately) then how can my position be
disproved?
I think *teenagers*, probably more-specifically young-adults
past-puberty, should be allowed to decide *who* they have sex with,
*when* they have sex, *whether* they have sex, and *if* they ever have
sex at all!
Other people, like you, keep *twisting* that into saying I want OLD
people to be able to FORCE YOUNG PEOPLE into having sex! I *don't!
In fact, if you examine *reality*, the chances of a teenager *wanting*
sex with an "old fart" is almost nonexistent! Not impossible, but
damned unlikely! The Straw-Man accusation that I want to "enable old
people to seduce young people" is a bunch of *horse crock*! Even the
possible case that *if* such laws were modified to *allow* kids to
decide who they want to have sex with, *might* allow *some* older
A. Irrelevant if it's the KIDS who pick THEM for sex.
B. Highly unlikely.
C. *COERCION* would STILL be illegal.
D. Missing the point.
E. Unproven that it's even likely.
However, the damage done *now* by such laws is *real*.
The *possible* damage done by some older "child molesting pervert" who
convinces a child to have sex with him/her, is pure speculation ...
that's really unlikely if the sex is truly *voluntary*. Something my
opponents dismiss out-of-hand as being impossible. They *neglect* to
consider that if it truly *is* impossible, then the damage will never
take place!
Why?
Because the premise is that the *teenager* decides. If the teenager
does *not* decide (as in the premise above) then it's still illegal!
In fact, it's RAPE.
Reducing the argument to the absurd.
The reason most people don't buy that, is because they still buy into
the bullshit idea that a child having sex with an adult, is
by-definition being hurt ... whether the child thinks so or not,
whether the child grows up and thinks so or not, whether the child
dies as an aging grandparent at the age of 105, and STILL thinks so,
matters not to the people saying, "She was hurt, no matter what she
thinks."
And THAT attitude is the whole problem!
The attitude that a person is always hurt by a specific activity, no
matter what that person thinks, then or ever. Child or adult, the
premise is STILL wrong!
Oh, NOT because people *can't* be hurt without their knowing it. They
can. But from the protective attitude of: "WE know what's best for
you, so shut the fuck up!"
The moment the *government* tells me it knows what's best for me (like
in this case) I immediately wonder who has an axe to grind at my
expense. Usually, it's more than one person; and they don't have *my*
well being at heart at all.
As in this case.
So: Feel free to refute the argument ... If you can.
*I* listen, even if damned few of you do.

All that = if the opportunity
presents itself, no fear of getting caught, and perhaps a tiff with
the wifey, something COULD happen. IF something did and I stood by
and did nothing to prevent that, I would be just as liable morally
as he.

I don't agree. You aren't responsible for his actions; he is.

All it takes is the alignment of variables. Trigger (tiff),
opportunity, possibility of escape, and desire = trouble for an
undeserving, innocent child.

I personally don't believe that McCoy is aggressive enough to actually
act on his desires. I could be wrong.

What desires?
My desires to change wrong-headed laws?
You bet!

And the pedophile thinks it can change the laws to allow it to molest
young girls.

Post by Frank McCoy

Post by Robert Buchanan

Desires to have sex?
Again, you bet. I love my wife; and sex with her is wonderful!

We can olny wonder if your wife knows about your dark side, pedo frank.

Post by Frank McCoy

Post by Robert Buchanan

Desires to fight bigotry?
Damned tootin!
Desires to have sex with anybody other than my wife?
Better watch your accusations.

You will do nothing, pedo frank.......

Post by Frank McCoy

Post by Robert Buchanan

That's not only completely *wrong*, it's slander.
Ask anybody who knows me about my attitude towards my wife.
Hell, ask my wife.
I like to *look* at sexy young women.
Have sex with them?
What? And give up a chance with my wife?
(I would; because I'd insist on her knowing first ... and she wouldn't
likely let me in bed afterwards for months at the least.)
You know *nothing* about me ... quite obviously.
You *might*, if you actually *read* my stories; but I'm not really
asking that. But they *do* give away a lot of my real attitude about
sex and who with I'd want sex ... Only not what people just skimming
the material might think at first glance. *VERY* different, in fact.
My *fantasies* they document quite accurately.

We're well aware that you are a sick mother fucker, pedo frank

No, he's not a sick motherfucker - his mom's obviously too old for him
to get a hard on for . . . : )

Post by bob&carole

Post by Frank McCoy

Post by Robert Buchanan

But then, unlike many people, I differentiate between fantasy and
reality. What makes a wonderful fantasy would often make a truly
horrid reality.
Like a guy reading a book about a hero fighting goblins and orcs in
some far off imaginary country, he might wish the *story* could be
true; as some wonderful people live in the story. However wanting to
*live* in such a story would likely be short, miserable, and leading
to a horrible death. Liking a particular fantasy is NOT necessarily
wishing it could come true for YOU, or any indication that you WANT to
make it true.
Geesh.
Go read a murder-mystery or two.
Or Stephen King.

Also, as I have mentioned previously, fantasies often lead to the
act itself - fantasies stop short, they cease to fulfill. There
needs to be an escalation - and after a time, the only logical
escalation is the act itself.

Not for everyone. Not everyone with pedophile or ephebophile
tendencies makes that (suprisingly wide) leap towards being an actual
sex offender. A sixtysomething man who posts to USENET on a daily
basis doesn't seem to me like the type to go out and molest and/or
engage in sex with minors. Again, I could be wrong.

Wouldn't do it even if the teenagers came climbing in my lap begging
for sex. Though, I *might* suggest they go off somewhere private and
keep it to themselves, so I wouldn't feel obligated to report their
activities.
OK. I'll admit it: I *would* be tempted to watch.
Wouldn't though. Got more sense.

A point that I want to clarify, Frank: I never stated or even suggested
that you want to force anybody to have sex with anyone in any
circumstances. I don't believe you do, and you're not telling the truth
when you type that I've so much as hinted otherwise.

Generic "you" above.
Taking in not only the person I'm talking to in the immediate response;
but all opposing my views in the entire thread.
Sorry if you thought I was attacking "you" in particular.
I do lose track of which person aimed what insult at me.
So, if you (personally) see me saying, "You believe XXX about me," then
the "You" is intended to be, "Most of those who disagree with me about
YYY subject in this thread."
"If the shoe fits, wear it. If not, then please ignore."
Yeah, I know: I shouldn't be so lazy; and I *should* go back and
determine exactly which person in a thread said what.
Only then I wouldn't have even 1/4 enough time to answer all the posts
aimed at me, and some preverts (si) would ass-u-me that I didn't *have*
an answer; and so they "won" the argument. ;-{

Post by Robert Buchanan
Thanks for campaigning!

Well ... It's beginning to FEEL like a campaign.
Sorry if you feel caught in the middle of a bunch of television
commercials during election season.
--
_____
/ ' / 
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

[bob&carole]

Post by Max Grrl

Post by bob&carole

Post by Frank McCoy
In alt.fan.frank.mccoy Robert Buchanan

Post by Robert Buchanan

In alt.support.girl-lovers Robert Buchanan

Why Frank McCoy and "Wonderer" get along so well...
Wonderer wants to get a 16 year old girl pregnant, and Franks
wants to BE a pregnant 16 year old...
That plus wonderers dementia and Franks total denial makes
them the perfect couple!
I doubt Franks wife would approve, but I'm sure she would
appreciate knowing everything in the long run...

Do you think she DOES know about his . . . uh . . .
proclivities?

If she does and hasn't urged him to get into counseling, she is
just as culpable IMO if he does something to harm a child.
However, I doubt she does - most pedos keep things like this
secret from the close people in their life. Even though they
"believe" (well, justify to themselves anyway) there's nothing
wrong with it.

But AFAWK, he's using his real name . . . why in the world
hasn't someone called her and TOLD her - maybe show her his posts
and his "creative writing?"
If that's not been tried, IMHO, we're every bit as culpable.
Because she possibly *could* force him into therapy . . . you
know, as in "You go or I leave you and take the kids" kind of
thing.
You better believe *I* would. IF I chose to stay at ALL.

If you're actually considering going RL on Mr. McCoy, I must advise
against that course of action. If he ever had any children,
they're almost surely grown by now. Frank never mentioned to me
that he had kids, which means that he hasn't any (which is
probable) or that he's had some and probably had his way with them
(which is speculative, of course).

I'm not sure what you mean by going "RL" on him . . . if you mean
pay him a visit, of course not. I have survival instinct and it
would not be in my best favor . . .

And (depending on the circumstances) it might qualify as criminal
harrassment.

If you mean alerting his wife and/or community - that's a
possibility, to be honest.

His wife is already aware of his inclinations and his fiction, and
what he does is none of his community's business, because he's not
actually hurting anyone. Trolling is one thing; RL harrassment is
another.

Why? Would you, in all honesty, be comfy with this man
living next door to you and having access (however limited) to
*your* kids???

Probably not. But we're not his neighbors, and I honestly believe
that McCoy poses no threat to anyone he knows in RL.

I'm not sure if I would face prosecution for that . . . he posts
in a public place and there is an assumed lack of privacy in doing
so. Also, bear in mind that many communities post pics of "johns"
visiting local prostitutes. They do that and AFAIK escape
prosecution.

That's a local matter, albeit one that I feel is a waste of public
resources.

Do you think that every time she comes home from the grocery
store she has to ask her daughter if "Daddy touched her
_there_?

If she does, she needs a good swift asskicking for putting her
daughter in harms way.

Well, there's a no-brainer - to people who aren't completely
fucked up - but I'll bet there's more sick bitches out there than
you think.
Karla Homolka helped her husband Paul Bernardo, kidnap, rape,
torture and murder 3 young girls - including her own sister!!! -
in Canada. Carol Bundy (no relation to Ted Bundy) also assisted
her husband in doing the same.
They're out there and fucktards like Frank can easily find them.

Frank has some truly sick fantasies, but I don't think he'd ever
act on them.

See, I disagree to an extent. He has fantasies, a God Complex (in
wanting to change the law and actively working toward that goal),
and I believe, a touch of psychopathy.

I don't think that McCoy is overtly psychotic, but I agree that his
incapability to believe (much less admit) that he's supporting
pedophilia while supporting it is a clear indication of that curious
lack of self- awareness that accompanies all psychotic pathologies. I
don't think he has a full-blown god complex, but I would agree that he
is incapable of admitting that he's wrong, at least on the topic of
so-called "inter- generational" sex.

That's mostly because nobody seems to follow what I mean (possibly my
own fault) well enough to give a valid or even reasoned response
showing I might be wrong. If people keep on misunderstanding my
position (sometimes it seems deliberately) then how can my position be
disproved?
I think *teenagers*, probably more-specifically young-adults
past-puberty, should be allowed to decide *who* they have sex with,
*when* they have sex, *whether* they have sex, and *if* they ever have
sex at all!
Other people, like you, keep *twisting* that into saying I want OLD
people to be able to FORCE YOUNG PEOPLE into having sex! I *don't!
In fact, if you examine *reality*, the chances of a teenager *wanting*
sex with an "old fart" is almost nonexistent! Not impossible, but
damned unlikely! The Straw-Man accusation that I want to "enable old
people to seduce young people" is a bunch of *horse crock*! Even the
possible case that *if* such laws were modified to *allow* kids to
decide who they want to have sex with, *might* allow *some* older
A. Irrelevant if it's the KIDS who pick THEM for sex.
B. Highly unlikely.
C. *COERCION* would STILL be illegal.
D. Missing the point.
E. Unproven that it's even likely.
However, the damage done *now* by such laws is *real*.
The *possible* damage done by some older "child molesting pervert" who
convinces a child to have sex with him/her, is pure speculation ...
that's really unlikely if the sex is truly *voluntary*. Something my
opponents dismiss out-of-hand as being impossible. They *neglect* to
consider that if it truly *is* impossible, then the damage will never
take place!
Why?
Because the premise is that the *teenager* decides. If the teenager
does *not* decide (as in the premise above) then it's still illegal!
In fact, it's RAPE.
Reducing the argument to the absurd.
The reason most people don't buy that, is because they still buy into
the bullshit idea that a child having sex with an adult, is
by-definition being hurt ... whether the child thinks so or not,
whether the child grows up and thinks so or not, whether the child
dies as an aging grandparent at the age of 105, and STILL thinks so,
matters not to the people saying, "She was hurt, no matter what she
thinks."
And THAT attitude is the whole problem!
The attitude that a person is always hurt by a specific activity, no
matter what that person thinks, then or ever. Child or adult, the
premise is STILL wrong!
Oh, NOT because people *can't* be hurt without their knowing it. They
can. But from the protective attitude of: "WE know what's best for
you, so shut the fuck up!"
The moment the *government* tells me it knows what's best for me (like
in this case) I immediately wonder who has an axe to grind at my
expense. Usually, it's more than one person; and they don't have *my*
well being at heart at all.
As in this case.
So: Feel free to refute the argument ... If you can.
*I* listen, even if damned few of you do.

All that = if the opportunity
presents itself, no fear of getting caught, and perhaps a tiff with
the wifey, something COULD happen. IF something did and I stood by
and did nothing to prevent that, I would be just as liable morally
as he.

I don't agree. You aren't responsible for his actions; he is.

All it takes is the alignment of variables. Trigger (tiff),
opportunity, possibility of escape, and desire = trouble for an
undeserving, innocent child.

I personally don't believe that McCoy is aggressive enough to actually
act on his desires. I could be wrong.

What desires?
My desires to change wrong-headed laws?
You bet!

And the pedophile thinks it can change the laws to allow it to molest
young girls.

Post by Frank McCoy

Post by Robert Buchanan

Desires to have sex?
Again, you bet. I love my wife; and sex with her is wonderful!

We can olny wonder if your wife knows about your dark side, pedo frank.

Post by Frank McCoy

Post by Robert Buchanan

Desires to fight bigotry?
Damned tootin!
Desires to have sex with anybody other than my wife?
Better watch your accusations.

You will do nothing, pedo frank.......

Post by Frank McCoy

Post by Robert Buchanan

That's not only completely *wrong*, it's slander.
Ask anybody who knows me about my attitude towards my wife.
Hell, ask my wife.
I like to *look* at sexy young women.
Have sex with them?
What? And give up a chance with my wife?
(I would; because I'd insist on her knowing first ... and she wouldn't
likely let me in bed afterwards for months at the least.)
You know *nothing* about me ... quite obviously.
You *might*, if you actually *read* my stories; but I'm not really
asking that. But they *do* give away a lot of my real attitude about
sex and who with I'd want sex ... Only not what people just skimming
the material might think at first glance. *VERY* different, in fact.
My *fantasies* they document quite accurately.

We're well aware that you are a sick mother fucker, pedo frank

No, he's not a sick motherfucker - his mom's obviously too old for him
to get a hard on for . . . : )

That's no obstacle for pedo frank, he will fuck his
grandchildren.........

Post by Max Grrl

Post by bob&carole

Post by Frank McCoy

Post by Robert Buchanan

But then, unlike many people, I differentiate between fantasy and
reality. What makes a wonderful fantasy would often make a truly
horrid reality.
Like a guy reading a book about a hero fighting goblins and orcs in
some far off imaginary country, he might wish the *story* could be
true; as some wonderful people live in the story. However wanting to
*live* in such a story would likely be short, miserable, and leading
to a horrible death. Liking a particular fantasy is NOT necessarily
wishing it could come true for YOU, or any indication that you WANT to
make it true.
Geesh.
Go read a murder-mystery or two.
Or Stephen King.

Also, as I have mentioned previously, fantasies often lead to the
act itself - fantasies stop short, they cease to fulfill. There
needs to be an escalation - and after a time, the only logical
escalation is the act itself.

Not for everyone. Not everyone with pedophile or ephebophile
tendencies makes that (suprisingly wide) leap towards being an actual
sex offender. A sixtysomething man who posts to USENET on a daily
basis doesn't seem to me like the type to go out and molest and/or
engage in sex with minors. Again, I could be wrong.

Wouldn't do it even if the teenagers came climbing in my lap begging
for sex. Though, I *might* suggest they go off somewhere private and
keep it to themselves, so I wouldn't feel obligated to report their
activities.
OK. I'll admit it: I *would* be tempted to watch.
Wouldn't though. Got more sense.

A point that I want to clarify, Frank: I never stated or even suggested
that you want to force anybody to have sex with anyone in any
circumstances. I don't believe you do, and you're not telling the truth
when you type that I've so much as hinted otherwise.

Generic "you" above.
Taking in not only the person I'm talking to in the immediate response;
but all opposing my views in the entire thread.
Sorry if you thought I was attacking "you" in particular.
I do lose track of which person aimed what insult at me.
So, if you (personally) see me saying, "You believe XXX about me," then
the "You" is intended to be, "Most of those who disagree with me about
YYY subject in this thread."
"If the shoe fits, wear it. If not, then please ignore."
Yeah, I know: I shouldn't be so lazy; and I *should* go back and
determine exactly which person in a thread said what.
Only then I wouldn't have even 1/4 enough time to answer all the posts
aimed at me, and some preverts (si) would ass-u-me that I didn't *have*
an answer; and so they "won" the argument. ;-{

Post by Robert Buchanan
Thanks for campaigning!

Well ... It's beginning to FEEL like a campaign.
Sorry if you feel caught in the middle of a bunch of television
commercials during election season.
--
_____
/ ' / 
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

--
Max Grrl

[Robert Buchanan]

In alt.support.girl-lovers Robert Buchanan

Why Frank McCoy and "Wonderer" get along so well...
Wonderer wants to get a 16 year old girl pregnant, and
Franks wants to BE a pregnant 16 year old...
That plus wonderers dementia and Franks total denial makes
them the perfect couple!
I doubt Franks wife would approve, but I'm sure she would
appreciate knowing everything in the long run...

Do you think she DOES know about his . . . uh . . .
proclivities?

If she does and hasn't urged him to get into counseling, she
is just as culpable IMO if he does something to harm a child.
However, I doubt she does - most pedos keep things like this
secret from the close people in their life. Even though they
"believe" (well, justify to themselves anyway) there's nothing
wrong with it.

But AFAWK, he's using his real name . . . why in the world
hasn't someone called her and TOLD her - maybe show her his
posts and his "creative writing?"
If that's not been tried, IMHO, we're every bit as culpable.
Because she possibly *could* force him into therapy . . . you
know, as in "You go or I leave you and take the kids" kind of
thing.
You better believe *I* would. IF I chose to stay at ALL.

If you're actually considering going RL on Mr. McCoy, I must
advise against that course of action. If he ever had any
children, they're almost surely grown by now. Frank never
mentioned to me that he had kids, which means that he hasn't any
(which is probable) or that he's had some and probably had his
way with them (which is speculative, of course).

I'm not sure what you mean by going "RL" on him . . . if you
mean pay him a visit, of course not. I have survival instinct and
it would not be in my best favor . . .

And (depending on the circumstances) it might qualify as criminal
harrassment.

If you mean alerting his wife and/or community - that's a
possibility, to be honest.

His wife is already aware of his inclinations and his fiction, and
what he does is none of his community's business, because he's not
actually hurting anyone. Trolling is one thing; RL harrassment is
another.

Why? Would you, in all honesty, be comfy with this man
living next door to you and having access (however limited) to
*your* kids???

Probably not. But we're not his neighbors, and I honestly believe
that McCoy poses no threat to anyone he knows in RL.

I'm not sure if I would face prosecution for that . . . he posts
in a public place and there is an assumed lack of privacy in doing
so. Also, bear in mind that many communities post pics of "johns"
visiting local prostitutes. They do that and AFAIK escape
prosecution.

That's a local matter, albeit one that I feel is a waste of public
resources.

Do you think that every time she comes home from the grocery
store she has to ask her daughter if "Daddy touched her
_there_?

If she does, she needs a good swift asskicking for putting her
daughter in harms way.

Well, there's a no-brainer - to people who aren't completely
fucked up - but I'll bet there's more sick bitches out there
than you think.
Karla Homolka helped her husband Paul Bernardo, kidnap, rape,
torture and murder 3 young girls - including her own sister!!!
- in Canada. Carol Bundy (no relation to Ted Bundy) also
assisted her husband in doing the same.
They're out there and fucktards like Frank can easily find
them.

Frank has some truly sick fantasies, but I don't think he'd ever
act on them.

See, I disagree to an extent. He has fantasies, a God Complex (in
wanting to change the law and actively working toward that goal),
and I believe, a touch of psychopathy.

I don't think that McCoy is overtly psychotic, but I agree that his
incapability to believe (much less admit) that he's supporting
pedophilia while supporting it is a clear indication of that curious
lack of self- awareness that accompanies all psychotic pathologies.
I don't think he has a full-blown god complex, but I would agree
that he is incapable of admitting that he's wrong, at least on the
topic of so-called "inter- generational" sex.

That's mostly because nobody seems to follow what I mean (possibly
my own fault) well enough to give a valid or even reasoned response
showing I might be wrong. If people keep on misunderstanding my
position (sometimes it seems deliberately) then how can my position
be disproved?
I think *teenagers*, probably more-specifically young-adults
past-puberty, should be allowed to decide *who* they have sex with,
*when* they have sex, *whether* they have sex, and *if* they ever
have sex at all!
Other people, like you, keep *twisting* that into saying I want OLD
people to be able to FORCE YOUNG PEOPLE into having sex! I *don't!
In fact, if you examine *reality*, the chances of a teenager
*wanting* sex with an "old fart" is almost nonexistent! Not
impossible, but damned unlikely! The Straw-Man accusation that I
want to "enable old people to seduce young people" is a bunch of
*horse crock*! Even the possible case that *if* such laws were
modified to *allow* kids to decide who they want to have sex with,
A. Irrelevant if it's the KIDS who pick THEM for sex.
B. Highly unlikely.
C. *COERCION* would STILL be illegal.
D. Missing the point.
E. Unproven that it's even likely.
However, the damage done *now* by such laws is *real*.
The *possible* damage done by some older "child molesting pervert"
who convinces a child to have sex with him/her, is pure speculation
... that's really unlikely if the sex is truly *voluntary*.
Something my opponents dismiss out-of-hand as being impossible.
They *neglect* to consider that if it truly *is* impossible, then
the damage will never take place!
Why?
Because the premise is that the *teenager* decides. If the teenager
does *not* decide (as in the premise above) then it's still illegal!
In fact, it's RAPE.
Reducing the argument to the absurd.
The reason most people don't buy that, is because they still buy
into the bullshit idea that a child having sex with an adult, is
by-definition being hurt ... whether the child thinks so or not,
whether the child grows up and thinks so or not, whether the child
dies as an aging grandparent at the age of 105, and STILL thinks so,
matters not to the people saying, "She was hurt, no matter what she
thinks."
And THAT attitude is the whole problem!
The attitude that a person is always hurt by a specific activity, no
matter what that person thinks, then or ever. Child or adult, the
premise is STILL wrong!
Oh, NOT because people *can't* be hurt without their knowing it.
They can. But from the protective attitude of: "WE know what's best
for you, so shut the fuck up!"
The moment the *government* tells me it knows what's best for me
(like in this case) I immediately wonder who has an axe to grind at
my expense. Usually, it's more than one person; and they don't have
*my* well being at heart at all.
As in this case.
So: Feel free to refute the argument ... If you can.
*I* listen, even if damned few of you do.

All that = if the opportunity
presents itself, no fear of getting caught, and perhaps a tiff
with the wifey, something COULD happen. IF something did and I
stood by and did nothing to prevent that, I would be just as
liable morally as he.

I don't agree. You aren't responsible for his actions; he is.

All it takes is the alignment of variables. Trigger (tiff),
opportunity, possibility of escape, and desire = trouble for an
undeserving, innocent child.

I personally don't believe that McCoy is aggressive enough to
actually act on his desires. I could be wrong.

What desires?
My desires to change wrong-headed laws?
You bet!
Desires to have sex?
Again, you bet. I love my wife; and sex with her is wonderful!
Desires to fight bigotry?
Damned tootin!
Desires to have sex with anybody other than my wife?
Better watch your accusations.
That's not only completely *wrong*, it's slander.
Ask anybody who knows me about my attitude towards my wife.
Hell, ask my wife.
I like to *look* at sexy young women.
Have sex with them?
What? And give up a chance with my wife?
(I would; because I'd insist on her knowing first ... and she
wouldn't likely let me in bed afterwards for months at the least.)
You know *nothing* about me ... quite obviously.
You *might*, if you actually *read* my stories; but I'm not really
asking that. But they *do* give away a lot of my real attitude
about sex and who with I'd want sex ... Only not what people just
skimming the material might think at first glance. *VERY*
different, in fact.
My *fantasies* they document quite accurately.
But then, unlike many people, I differentiate between fantasy and
reality. What makes a wonderful fantasy would often make a truly
horrid reality.
Like a guy reading a book about a hero fighting goblins and orcs in
some far off imaginary country, he might wish the *story* could be
true; as some wonderful people live in the story. However wanting
to *live* in such a story would likely be short, miserable, and
leading to a horrible death. Liking a particular fantasy is NOT
necessarily wishing it could come true for YOU, or any indication
that you WANT to make it true.
Geesh.
Go read a murder-mystery or two.
Or Stephen King.

Also, as I have mentioned previously, fantasies often lead to the
act itself - fantasies stop short, they cease to fulfill. There
needs to be an escalation - and after a time, the only logical
escalation is the act itself.

Not for everyone. Not everyone with pedophile or ephebophile
tendencies makes that (suprisingly wide) leap towards being an
actual sex offender. A sixtysomething man who posts to USENET on a
daily basis doesn't seem to me like the type to go out and molest
and/or engage in sex with minors. Again, I could be wrong.

Wouldn't do it even if the teenagers came climbing in my lap begging
for sex. Though, I *might* suggest they go off somewhere private
and keep it to themselves, so I wouldn't feel obligated to report
their activities.
OK. I'll admit it: I *would* be tempted to watch.
Wouldn't though. Got more sense.

Yet you have so far failed to support your position by providing the
numbers of teenagers incarcerated for having sex with another
teenager.
Lazy.

So, YOUR assertion is: That if somebody cannot provide reasonably
exact numbers of how many happen, then the item disputed is false and
*never* happens?
Hmmm ... Thinking about most of your own past arguments .....
Yep. Damned near every single one of them completely false ... by
your own logic!
By your own logic, NO child was EVER molested by an adult!
(Well: You can't give exact numbers!)
Idiot.
In cases like those, even ONE happening proves the case exists ...
yours AND mine. And yes, I *have* seen at least one case ... a friend
of mine (OK ... that's a lie. She's really a relative, and only
slightly a "friend". We'e had some big arguments in the past. I
started to make it more distant; protecting the relationship; then
thought better.) Dispute mine, and I'll dispute ALL of yours. Mine
happened. Yours, I ass-u-me did; though I personally have never seen
such a case. So I personally have more proof of my claim. *She*
however could tell you a story that would blister your ears.
"Anecdotal evidence" ... usually worthless, except in one type of
case: where somebody asserts, "THAT never happens!"
In cases like *this*, being what we KNOW and SEE, that's what we go
on. As do I.
I've seen quite a bit of the type of abuse *I* describe.
Somehow I get the impression you two are going on mere descriptions
from other people, not on personal knowledge. It's the personal
knowledge of the horrors of being beaten for thinking about sex,
masturbating as "children" in public institutions (OUCH! That just
brought back another memory of something that happened to ME in a
"private" institution: A Catholic Boarding School, when I was in the
second or third grade. No wonder I tried to forget it until now ...
and also no wonder I still vividly *do* remember the two types of
paddles the HeadMaster at that school had in his office. Eeep!) or
having real sex itself.
Oh shit ... I've got to go think for a while on this.
Remembering that ....
Damn. I thought it was that girl, or possibly my mother or sister.
Me? At age NINE? Possibly even EIGHT?
Oh God. No bloody *wonder* I hate anti-sex creeps!
Sorry ... I'm probably rambling uncontrollably right now.
I've got to dig this out a little deeper.
Right now it's all a confusion about posibly masturbating in a dorm,
somebody telling, and the Principal's office, along with nuns who had
absolutely *no* sense of humor when it came to sexual matters. ;-{
Shit. No bloody *wonder* I hated that institution and even tried to
run away twice; when otherwise it *should* have been a wonderful time.
I can't even remember clearly if I was actually spanked with that
particular criss-crossed paddle, or merely threatened. Spanked
somehow, almost certainly; but with that particular instrument of
torture? I do remember it being involved somehow; perhaps as a future
threat? ;-{
I guess they call that "suppressed memories".
I'm probably incoherent right now.
Sorry.
Be back later.

All this crap just for Frankie to say "No, I don't know of one single
case where a teenager has been incarcerated for having sex with another
teenager."
Pathetic.

Yep. Vote for Frank McCoy for Unabomber Surprise!

[Max Grrl]

Post by Robert Buchanan

I guess they call that "suppressed memories".
I'm probably incoherent right now.
Sorry.
Be back later.

All this crap just for Frankie to say "No, I don't know of one single
case where a teenager has been incarcerated for having sex with another
teenager."
Pathetic.

Yep. Vote for Frank McCoy for Unabomber Surprise!

Here, here!

I'll vote . . . but only if the US is mean, scary and involves pain
and dismemberment . . .

Oh, and the UB actually left victims alive. I hope you're not planning
to make the same mistake?

Post by Robert Buchanan
--
Robert Buchanan
<http://www.robertbuchanan.name/>
<http://www.simpy.com/user/rbuchanan>
Economic Left/Right: -0.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.18